2003-JUN-20: Gay couple denied marriage license in Alberta:
Keith Purdy, 41, and Rick Kennedy, 37, were refused a marriage license in
Calgary, AB. The clerk said that "The laws of Alberta, at this point, do not
allow same-sex marriage." The couple then crossed the street to the office
of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, and obtained a
complaint form which they planned to file on JUN-23. Purdy said: "We're
setting the groundwork for what's going to come up in the future. We want to
exercise our rights as Canadian citizens under the Charter. We consider
ourselves married already but we want to be legally recognized with all the
rights and responsibilities that come with that [state]." The couple have been
together for 13 years and held a commitment ceremony in 1992. 1

2003-JUN-29: Hundreds of marriage licenses issued to
same-sex couples in Toronto: Focus on the Family Canada quoted a
Canadian Press report which revealed that some 250 same-sex couples have
purchased marriage licenses in Toronto in the 19 days since such marriages were
legalized. It is not known how many licenses were obtained by same-sex couples
elsewhere in Ontario. The Toronto city registry office stayed open over the
weekend and added more staff to handle the anticipated number of couples
attending the city's Gay Pride festivities who wish to get married. 2

2003-JUN-30: Time runs out on appeal: This is the last day on which the decision of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
could have been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leaders of the
federal government cannot
now
decide to change their mind. They have to proceed with new
legislation legalizing SSM in order to make the marriage act conform to
the Charter of rights and Freedoms -- Canada's constitution.

2003-JUL-9: Attempt by social and religious conservatives to derail
process: As noted elsewhere, the federal
government decided on JUN-17 to not appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada the decisions of the British Columbia and Ontario Courts of Appeal that legalized same-sex marriages
in those provinces. However, two conservative groups have announced
that they will attempt to mount an appeal even in the absence of
federal support. The two groups are:

The Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family, which
includes the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic
Civil Rights League, the Islamic Society of North America and
the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Association for Marriage and the Family, which
includes Focus on the Family Canada, REAL Women of Canada
and the Canadian Family Action Coalition.

Both groups had "party intervenors" status when the same-sex marriage
case was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2003-APR. However, they
were not the main parties to the litigation. In Canadian jurisprudence, there are precedences for both allowing and
denying the right of appeal by groups that are not the main parties in the case.
The Ontario Court of Appeal did not rule whether these groups could mount an
appeal to the Supreme Court. A lawyer for the Association, David Brown, said: "The
position of the association and the coalition is that, because they were party
intervenors, there is a basis for them to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada and, given the importance of the case, that this is an
appropriate one for the court to hear." 3

However, Doug Elliot, a lawyer for the Metropolitan Community Church,
which was also a party intervener in the case, said: "The litigation is over between my
client and the government. The government announced it is not going to appeal.
If they (the intervenors) want to start a legal challenge to the proposed
legislation the government is introducing, they have to start from scratch. They
can't keep a fight going that's not their fight. They can't piggyback on to
ours. It's none of their business." 3

David Brown would not comment on whether his clients would attempt to stay
the Court of Appeal ruling pending a decision by the Supreme Court. Mary
McCarthy, a lawyer who represented eight same-sex couples in the case said the
legal test for granting a stay is whether the lower court ruling would cause "irreparable
harm" if it were allowed to stand. She said that, so far, there was no evidence
that this has happened. She said: "The sky is still were it usually is and
more than 200 marriage licenses have been issued in Toronto [to same sex
couples]."

2003-JUL-23: City of Toronto statistics on same-sex
marriages: The City of Toronto issued 362 marriage licenses to
same-sex couples between 2003-JUN-10 (when SSM was legalized) and JUL-15. This
included 157 licenses to lesbian couples and 205 to gay couples. They totaled
13% of the total licenses issued. After JUL-15, the City will not provide
updates to these statistics, perhaps because SSM is such a routine occurrence.

2003-JUL-17: Government legislation completed and sent to
Supreme Court:
The federal government has drafted legislation which would
expand marriage to include same-sex couples across the country. The draft
bill's text is:

Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal
capacity for marriage for civil purposes

WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in
Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a
responsibility to support that institution because it
strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the
foundation of family life for many Canadians;

WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance,
respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes
should be extended to couples of the same sex;

AND WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and
religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and officials of religious groups are free to refuse to
perform marriages that are not in accordance with their
religious beliefs;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as
follows:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons
to the exclusion of all others.
Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of
religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in
accordance with their religious beliefs.

Consequential amendments will be added in the bill that is
introduced in Parliament.*

Consequential amendments are changes to other federal
statutes that will have to be made as a result of new
legislation. 15

It is expected that the
changes in law would be minimal:

Current references in law that define marriage as
being between one man and one woman would be replaced by a new definition,
which is identical to that found in the
2003-MAY-1
ruling of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia: . The
draft bill states that "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful
union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." 4,13

A new section is included to affirm that churches and other
religious groups can continue to discriminate by refusing to marry any
couple that does not meet their standards -- however arbitrary or
discriminatory that they might appear to many secularists and
religious liberals. The draft states that: "nothing in this Act
affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to
conduct marriage ceremonies that are not in accordance with their
religious beliefs." 13

The legislation was sent as a "reference" to the Supreme Court
on 2003-JUL-17. According to the Office of the Minister of Justice, the government has asked the court for a non-binding ruling on
three
questions:

"Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting
certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil
purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or
particulars, and to what extent?"

"If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of
the proposal, which extends capacity to marry persons of the
same sex, consistent with the Charter of rights and
Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to
what extent."

"Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph
2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect
religious officials form being compelled to perform a
marriage between two persons of the same sex that is
contrary to their religious beliefs?" 13,14

If the answer to the first question is yes, then Alberta's
assertion that it will use the "Not Withstanding" clause to opt out
of same-sex marriages will presumably be without merit. 4,5

2003-JUL-25: Gay marriage announcements: Some American
gay and lesbian couples are going to Canada to be married, and then returning
to their homes in the U.S. where they are asking their local newspaper to
carry their wedding announcements. The fundamentalist Christian Family
Research Council (FRC) notes that the Washington Post and Times-Picayune
[New Orleans] newspaper have been publishing such announcements. The FRC is
urging its supporters to write letters to their local paper, asking them to
veto announcements about same-sex marriages. FRC Vice President
Genevieve Wood told the Associated Press that: "The fact that The Washington
Post and Times-Picayune [New Orleans] ran these announcements shows a
reflection of the political views of the newspapers' owners and editorial
boards, not the American public." 6

2003-JUL-28: Request to stay JUN-10 decision: Darrel Reid,
of Focus on the Family, Canada, filed an affidavit with the
Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Association for
Marriage and the Family in Ontario. It seeks a stay of the JUN-10
decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision which
legalized SSM, in the event that the Supreme Court allows an
appeal. They base this request on a number of points:

A "checkerboard pattern now seems to exist concerning the
lawfulness of same-sex unions." Some provinces allow them;
others do not.

The current status of same-sex unions is uncertain. The Supreme
Court might disallow them in the future after the appeal is heard.

Clergy are confused about their civil rights obligations if they
are asked to perform a SSM. They are confused about the future of
the institution of marriage.

The Association's belief is that staying the ruling of the Appeal
Court, and thus making SSM unavailable once more, would be the best
course of action.

The affidavit recognized that the normal procedure would have been
for the Association to request a stay from the Court of Appeal
itself. However, they argued that they felt that they could not
receive an "impartial hearing" before a panel of that court.
That is an unusually serious charge -- almost unprecedented. They
cited the presence of two Justices of the court at the Law Society
of Upper Canada's annual Pride Week reception as proof of
bias.

The request for a stay has little chance of success. Typically,
they are only granted in cases of dire emergencies. No such disaster
appears imminent. 12

Doug Elliot, a lawyer for the Metropolitan Community Church,
commented: "When a judge attends black history month, he is showing
his commitment to equality. When he attends the Red Mass, he is
showing respect for Catholics. When he attends Pride Week, he is
making a political statement and is biased. [This is] Proof again that
homophobia is the most politically acceptable form of discrimination,
especially when wrapped in the cloak of religion and family values."
13

2003-JUL-29: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The Conference decided to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for
permission to argue against the government's draft bill when the Court holds hearings
on the proposed legislation. Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of
the Conference said: "Our position is: Keep the traditional definition of
marriage. It has served society well and it will serve society in the
future...We're one of the members of society and we feel as a rather important
member of society we should also speak...We don't see this strictly as a
religious point of view." 7

2003-AUG-4: Letters to the Editor heat up:

Paul Kiloski of Hamilton suggested that the Roman Catholic
hierarchy "up the ante and support the Pope's initiative by proposing its
own stiff legislation of excommunication for all so-called Catholic MPs
including the Prime Minster, who vote against their faith in favour of same-sex
marriages."

Neil Thomlinson of Toronto directed a message to the Pope:
"When you've cleaned up your own house and seen justice done for the many children who experienced real violence at the hands of our employees, then come
back and talk about whatever violence you imagine may result for gay and
lesbian adoption."8

2003-AUG-8: Liberal members of parliament feeling some heat
from voters: "Liberal cabinet ministers, like backbenchers, are
receiving hundreds of letters, calls and e-mails on the plan" to pass
legislation that would make SSM available across Canada. 9

One woman phoned Steve Mahoney, a recently named cabinet
minister, and yelled at him: "You're not a Christian. I voted for you
because you were a [Roman] Catholic." Mahoney no longer considers himself
an "active, practicing Catholic" but still considers himself to have with
religious views. He said: "I simply don't make my policy decisions based on
my religion." Apparently referring to the oath of office, in which he and
all other members of parliament must swear to support the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, he said: "We're morally and legally bound to uphold the
Constitution and that's the basis upon which I've made my decision."

Garfield Dunlop, a Conservative and Member of the Ontario
legislature is circulating a petition to try to influence Paul DeVillers, the
local Liberal member of parliament, a Roman Catholic, and the Minister for
Amateur Sports, to vote against the proposed legislation. DeVilliers
quipped: "Have I burned in Hell yet? No....The sanctity of marriage
is more challenged by heterosexuals divorcing than by what other people --
same-sex people -- are doing. I don't believe I should be imposing my morality
on other people."

Solicitor-General Wayne Easter met recently with two
Presbyterian ministers, and said that opposition in his riding "is very
wide-spread....There's less opposition to the same-sex unions per se. It's the
marriage thing. I don't mind admitting I've got problems with that myself....It
would be nice to know what the Supreme Court would say if we didn't use the
word 'marriage.' That's what I would like to know." According to the
Toronto Star, both Mahoney and Easter had sought some kind of compromise in
Cabinet -- civil unions for gays and lesbians with equivalent rights and
privileges to married couples. However, the government's lawyers suggested that
it would create a two-tiered system of marriage which would would have a very
high probably of being declared unconstitutional by the courts. Separate and
equal institutions are generally separate, but rarely equal.

Government House leader Don Boudria is a member of parliament
from a rural Ottawa Valley riding that is almost 80% French Canadian Catholic.
He said that he has not been flooded with opposition on the issue. He senses
that his riding is likely split evenly on SSM. Boudria pointed to the
wide-spread acceptance of birth control, which is officially against Catholic
doctrine, as an example of how people "go on to live their lives in the way
that they do."

Thoren Hudyma, spokesperson for the Prime Minister said: "The
Prime Minister has made his case several times and his position is clear. His
position is that there needs to be a separation between church and state and as
Prime Minister he has an obligation to protect the equality of all
Canadians...But he is not going to preach to caucus. It's not a
ram-it-down-your-throat kind of thing. It is a free vote." 9

2003-AUG-9: New survey results published: An Ipsos-Reid
survey asked the question: "Do you support or oppose same-sex couples being
allowed to marry and register their marriage with the provincial government?"
Results were:

25.6% strongly support

23.7 somewhat support

11.8 somewhat oppose

36.7% strongly oppose

3% are undecided.

55% of women and 44% of men support same-sex marriage. Most
adults 54 years and younger support SSM, compared to only 35% of those over 54.
University graduates support SSM at almost twice the rate as do persons with
some high school experience. A slightly higher percentage of Roman Catholics support SSM
than do persons of other denominations and religions. Support rises
significantly with annual income.

The survey also sought the
public's opinion on civil unions:

38% said that all couples -- opposite and same gender -- should
be able to marry.

37% said that marriage should only apply to one man and one
woman, and presumably that the unions of gays and lesbians should not be recognized
at all.

24% said that a term other than "marriage" should be
used to apply to same-sex couples, and presumably that gays and lesbians would
receive the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex married couples.

1% were undecided. 10

2003-AUG-9: Feds may introduce civil union option: The
federal government is reported as considering revising the reference that it sent to the
Supreme Court. They might add an additional question: whether the creation of a
system of civil unions for gays and lesbians, that would have the same rights,
privileges and obligations as marriage, would be constitutional. The general
consensus among constitutional experts is that separate but equal systems would
be discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. 10

2003-AUG-10: Church resolution to support same-sex
marriages: The Rt. Rev. Dr. Marion Pardy, Moderator of the United Church of
Canada discussed a petition which originated from the church's Saskatchewan Conference.
It
calls on the federal government to create civil union legislation for same-sex
couples. She said: "I might be proved wrong, but my sense is in
terms of the actions we have already taken in the General Council, that it will
be approved...We in The United Church of Canada have been dealing with same-sex
partnerships and gay and lesbian persons for a long time....At each of the
United Church (General Council) gatherings we advance the discussion" The
Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, Acting General Secretary of the General Council,
said that any decision around same-sex marriages will rest with the Session
(elders/leaders) of the local congregation. "In our church, and in other
churches, the local congregation sets policy concerning marriage matters." The
moderator said that she had telephoned Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
to applaud his "responsible leadership and courageous leadership" around
the SSM legislation. 11